The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
There is a question that filmgoers everywhere ask each summer, ‘Does a film really have to have a good plot?’ The summer blockbusters seem to think that narrative can be sacrificed in order to fit in more action or give the main star more screen time. This seems to be the case for more and more summer hits these days, but how important is the plot to a film?
Think about the audience for a minute. Some of these people have such a limited attention span that it would be difficult imagining them concentrating on a whole advert, let alone a full movie. For these people, the popcorn fuelled movie experience of the summer blockbuster is perfect, no intricate detail and no using of little grey cells means that they can sit back and just fall into a film.
Other people want to be challenged by what they see when they go to the cinema. They want something thought provoking and interesting to fill their minds. They want to walk out of the cinema having had a cerebral challenge as well as being entertained.
There are films, such as Tomb Raider, Lawnmower Man and Mortal Kombat have little in the way of narrative (in the traditional sense) and boast a lot of action and special effects, or some original CGI effects as their main selling point. For the popcorn crowd it’s perfect, some people even loved Tomb Raider because it was more like the game than the film! Others couldn’t stand it, the lack of any decent plot was an insult to them.
The difference between films with plot or action is like the difference between a Circus and a Theatre. Both offer some form of entertainment, both get huge crowds in to watch the act, but they both do this in different ways. The Circus is a series of small acts, no relevant link between them other than they are all in the same place and led by some kind of ringmaster. The Theatre, on the other hand, has a running narrative and often contains subtle digs at society or at least has something important to say. With films, some are pure popcorn movies that are there for no other reason than to thrill the viewer, often with a series of set pieces, or acts. There are also some fantastic films that have more hidden meaning than you could shake a psychiatrist at. Both have their fans and a lot of people are quite willing to sit down in front of either to be entertained. Others would just think it was rubbish and probably fall asleep during the movie, they prefer something that doesn’t require much thinking and something they can relax with.
The main aim for a film is entertainment, how it does this is up to the people who make the film. The audience will usually know what kind of film it is before sitting down in the cinema or renting the film out, and the director will want to encourage the ‘right’ type of audience to their film. The film studio will probably want the largest crowds possible, however, and often a film will sacrifice some of its detail to become that bit shorter, more simple or just more action packed so they can sell it to both parties.
Should this be done? I don’t think it matters. The people who want to see each type of film will no doubt find their way to it and others will shy away or just tell their friends what an awful film it was for them. Of course, with Tomb Raider it makes you wonder if there isn’t a stage too far in the action stakes…!
Think about the audience for a minute. Some of these people have such a limited attention span that it would be difficult imagining them concentrating on a whole advert, let alone a full movie. For these people, the popcorn fuelled movie experience of the summer blockbuster is perfect, no intricate detail and no using of little grey cells means that they can sit back and just fall into a film.
Other people want to be challenged by what they see when they go to the cinema. They want something thought provoking and interesting to fill their minds. They want to walk out of the cinema having had a cerebral challenge as well as being entertained.
There are films, such as Tomb Raider, Lawnmower Man and Mortal Kombat have little in the way of narrative (in the traditional sense) and boast a lot of action and special effects, or some original CGI effects as their main selling point. For the popcorn crowd it’s perfect, some people even loved Tomb Raider because it was more like the game than the film! Others couldn’t stand it, the lack of any decent plot was an insult to them.
The difference between films with plot or action is like the difference between a Circus and a Theatre. Both offer some form of entertainment, both get huge crowds in to watch the act, but they both do this in different ways. The Circus is a series of small acts, no relevant link between them other than they are all in the same place and led by some kind of ringmaster. The Theatre, on the other hand, has a running narrative and often contains subtle digs at society or at least has something important to say. With films, some are pure popcorn movies that are there for no other reason than to thrill the viewer, often with a series of set pieces, or acts. There are also some fantastic films that have more hidden meaning than you could shake a psychiatrist at. Both have their fans and a lot of people are quite willing to sit down in front of either to be entertained. Others would just think it was rubbish and probably fall asleep during the movie, they prefer something that doesn’t require much thinking and something they can relax with.
The main aim for a film is entertainment, how it does this is up to the people who make the film. The audience will usually know what kind of film it is before sitting down in the cinema or renting the film out, and the director will want to encourage the ‘right’ type of audience to their film. The film studio will probably want the largest crowds possible, however, and often a film will sacrifice some of its detail to become that bit shorter, more simple or just more action packed so they can sell it to both parties.
Should this be done? I don’t think it matters. The people who want to see each type of film will no doubt find their way to it and others will shy away or just tell their friends what an awful film it was for them. Of course, with Tomb Raider it makes you wonder if there isn’t a stage too far in the action stakes…!
There is a question that filmgoers everywhere ask each summer, ‘Does a film really have to have a good plot?’ The summer blockbusters seem to think that narrative can be sacrificed in order to fit in more action or give the main star more screen time. This seems to be the case for more and more summer hits these days, but how important is the plot to a film?
Think about the audience for a minute. Some of these people have such a limited attention span that it would be difficult imagining them concentrating on a whole advert, let alone a full movie. For these people, the popcorn fuelled movie experience of the summer blockbuster is perfect, no intricate detail and no using of little grey cells means that they can sit back and just fall into a film.
Other people want to be challenged by what they see when they go to the cinema. They want something thought provoking and interesting to fill their minds. They want to walk out of the cinema having had a cerebral challenge as well as being entertained.
There are films, such as Tomb Raider, Lawnmower Man and Mortal Kombat have little in the way of narrative (in the traditional sense) and boast a lot of action and special effects, or some original CGI effects as their main selling point. For the popcorn crowd it’s perfect, some people even loved Tomb Raider because it was more like the game than the film! Others couldn’t stand it, the lack of any decent plot was an insult to them.
The difference between films with plot or action is like the difference between a Circus and a Theatre. Both offer some form of entertainment, both get huge crowds in to watch the act, but they both do this in different ways. The Circus is a series of small acts, no relevant link between them other than they are all in the same place and led by some kind of ringmaster. The Theatre, on the other hand, has a running narrative and often contains subtle digs at society or at least has something important to say. With films, some are pure popcorn movies that are there for no other reason than to thrill the viewer, often with a series of set pieces, or acts. There are also some fantastic films that have more hidden meaning than you could shake a psychiatrist at. Both have their fans and a lot of people are quite willing to sit down in front of either to be entertained. Others would just think it was rubbish and probably fall asleep during the movie, they prefer something that doesn’t require much thinking and something they can relax with.
The main aim for a film is entertainment, how it does this is up to the people who make the film. The audience will usually know what kind of film it is before sitting down in the cinema or renting the film out, and the director will want to encourage the ‘right’ type of audience to their film. The film studio will probably want the largest crowds possible, however, and often a film will sacrifice some of its detail to become that bit shorter, more simple or just more action packed so they can sell it to both parties.
Should this be done? I don’t think it matters. The people who want to see each type of film will no doubt find their way to it and others will shy away or just tell their friends what an awful film it was for them. Of course, with Tomb Raider it makes you wonder if there isn’t a stage too far in the action stakes…!
Think about the audience for a minute. Some of these people have such a limited attention span that it would be difficult imagining them concentrating on a whole advert, let alone a full movie. For these people, the popcorn fuelled movie experience of the summer blockbuster is perfect, no intricate detail and no using of little grey cells means that they can sit back and just fall into a film.
Other people want to be challenged by what they see when they go to the cinema. They want something thought provoking and interesting to fill their minds. They want to walk out of the cinema having had a cerebral challenge as well as being entertained.
There are films, such as Tomb Raider, Lawnmower Man and Mortal Kombat have little in the way of narrative (in the traditional sense) and boast a lot of action and special effects, or some original CGI effects as their main selling point. For the popcorn crowd it’s perfect, some people even loved Tomb Raider because it was more like the game than the film! Others couldn’t stand it, the lack of any decent plot was an insult to them.
The difference between films with plot or action is like the difference between a Circus and a Theatre. Both offer some form of entertainment, both get huge crowds in to watch the act, but they both do this in different ways. The Circus is a series of small acts, no relevant link between them other than they are all in the same place and led by some kind of ringmaster. The Theatre, on the other hand, has a running narrative and often contains subtle digs at society or at least has something important to say. With films, some are pure popcorn movies that are there for no other reason than to thrill the viewer, often with a series of set pieces, or acts. There are also some fantastic films that have more hidden meaning than you could shake a psychiatrist at. Both have their fans and a lot of people are quite willing to sit down in front of either to be entertained. Others would just think it was rubbish and probably fall asleep during the movie, they prefer something that doesn’t require much thinking and something they can relax with.
The main aim for a film is entertainment, how it does this is up to the people who make the film. The audience will usually know what kind of film it is before sitting down in the cinema or renting the film out, and the director will want to encourage the ‘right’ type of audience to their film. The film studio will probably want the largest crowds possible, however, and often a film will sacrifice some of its detail to become that bit shorter, more simple or just more action packed so they can sell it to both parties.
Should this be done? I don’t think it matters. The people who want to see each type of film will no doubt find their way to it and others will shy away or just tell their friends what an awful film it was for them. Of course, with Tomb Raider it makes you wonder if there isn’t a stage too far in the action stakes…!
I think you'll find that the dumb-blockbuster/intelligent-indie film dichotomy is actually shifting quite a lot at the moment. First of all we have some stinkers of indie films, which cling to their indie-ness as their sole redeeming feature. However, the action film is becoming a whole different kettle of fish. The first director to really break the action movie mould was Bryan Singer, I mean in recent terms. Singer's "X-Men" almost reached that tantalising holy-grail for blockbuster market, a critically-acclaimed, successful blockbuster. When I say critically-acclaimed I don't mean that some monkey from the Sun gives it a "big two thumbs up". I mean that the film receives plaudits from credible sources as being a genuinely good film. The downfall of "X-Men" was that it included too few action sequences for the braindead and too little underlying messages for cinema-lovers. It was a great film and a success but not in the terms that either party would have wanted.
In the future many hollywood films will break that boundary. I read a recent article in the Times 2 in the cinema section that said many hollywood studios were recruiting indie film makers for medium budget productions. In hollywood terms "medium budget" is still a hell of a lot of money. They seem to have realised that you can't deliver the public the same schlock again and again in different forms and expect them to lap it up, after all before Harry Potter and LOTR, the blockbuster seemed to be going into decline. However, by giving credible directors more money than they are used to you can produce more films that have a stab at success and acclaim.
The best example I can think of is wilfully alternative director Darren Aronofsky who has been hired by Warner Brothers to film the new Batman film. This is particularly fitting, as anyone familiar with the Batman series will know that Burton's two Batmans were the only ones which tried to be a blockbuster with something more. Burton's films were by no means hyper-intelligent, but they were infinitely more so than most of the dumb-American war films out at the moment. Aronofsky, I predict, will be the first director in modern cinema to make a commercially successful and critically-adored film. If he doesn't then it may well be an impossible task.
Oh, and on a side note, I go to the theatre quite a lot, and productions of late seem to be going into a downward spiral of dumbness. I went to see "the Winter's Tale" in London and the producer had seen fit to turn Autolycus into Ali G. That was actually quite funny, and didn't work too badly; however, other local productions, well local for me, have been getting dumber and dumber.
In the future many hollywood films will break that boundary. I read a recent article in the Times 2 in the cinema section that said many hollywood studios were recruiting indie film makers for medium budget productions. In hollywood terms "medium budget" is still a hell of a lot of money. They seem to have realised that you can't deliver the public the same schlock again and again in different forms and expect them to lap it up, after all before Harry Potter and LOTR, the blockbuster seemed to be going into decline. However, by giving credible directors more money than they are used to you can produce more films that have a stab at success and acclaim.
The best example I can think of is wilfully alternative director Darren Aronofsky who has been hired by Warner Brothers to film the new Batman film. This is particularly fitting, as anyone familiar with the Batman series will know that Burton's two Batmans were the only ones which tried to be a blockbuster with something more. Burton's films were by no means hyper-intelligent, but they were infinitely more so than most of the dumb-American war films out at the moment. Aronofsky, I predict, will be the first director in modern cinema to make a commercially successful and critically-adored film. If he doesn't then it may well be an impossible task.
Oh, and on a side note, I go to the theatre quite a lot, and productions of late seem to be going into a downward spiral of dumbness. I went to see "the Winter's Tale" in London and the producer had seen fit to turn Autolycus into Ali G. That was actually quite funny, and didn't work too badly; however, other local productions, well local for me, have been getting dumber and dumber.
I hate the theatre. You can't relax, you have to be quiet, most plays are terrible drivel. And don't get me started on Shakespear plays! Hours and hours of nonsense, after which you leave as ignorant as to what the play was about than when you went in.
MoJoJoJo wrote:
> I hate the theatre. You can't relax, you have to be quiet, most plays are
> terrible drivel. And don't get me started on Shakespear plays! Hours and hours
> of nonsense, after which you leave as ignorant as to what the play was about
> than when you went in.
moron.
> I hate the theatre. You can't relax, you have to be quiet, most plays are
> terrible drivel. And don't get me started on Shakespear plays! Hours and hours
> of nonsense, after which you leave as ignorant as to what the play was about
> than when you went in.
moron.
MoJoJoJo wrote:
> I hate the theatre. You can't relax, you have to be quiet, most plays are
> terrible drivel. And don't get me started on Shakespear plays! Hours and hours
> of nonsense, after which you leave as ignorant as to what the play was about
> than when you went in.
Thats what I thought....until I actually went during English Literature A Levels. Sure, you've got to be quiet, but surely thats not unreasonable for a few hours ? Seeing Shakespeare's plays is far better than reading them, and more understandable !
> I hate the theatre. You can't relax, you have to be quiet, most plays are
> terrible drivel. And don't get me started on Shakespear plays! Hours and hours
> of nonsense, after which you leave as ignorant as to what the play was about
> than when you went in.
Thats what I thought....until I actually went during English Literature A Levels. Sure, you've got to be quiet, but surely thats not unreasonable for a few hours ? Seeing Shakespeare's plays is far better than reading them, and more understandable !
Anyone watched the film version of Twelfth Night? We're doing it in English at the moment, and it's actually really good!
RastaBillySkank wrote:
> Anyone watched the film version of Twelfth Night? We're doing it in English at
> the moment, and it's actually really good!
Isn't that the rather explicit book?
> Anyone watched the film version of Twelfth Night? We're doing it in English at
> the moment, and it's actually really good!
Isn't that the rather explicit book?